It's funny that Microsoft is even bothering to deny that they have ever installed, or allowed to install, backdoors in its products. What credibility do they have left, as a company that has reneged in its deals time and time again, or that has been convicted in court of criminal behavior more than once?

News of the world newspaper in UK went into liquidation due to piracy issue.
I suppose we should accept we are being spied upon. However people with properties/secrets are the ones who will be most worried about their secrecy.

TE and NSA are quite alike. If you log in too many times without clearing your browsing history, the main TE page comes up with a sight maintenance page, not with a message that you have looked at too many pages. This is to discourage people from clearing their history and going to the TE site again. Quite the security arms race, is this not?

While I sympathise with most critics of the NSA, I wonder if well meant but rather vague grumblings may not really be helping. Imho, we need a reasoned discussion that takes into account the other side's interest, namely: that the NSA activities do offer at least some benefit to the US government (I am not an American myself). Those benefits have to be weighed against privacy, as privacy is not an absolute right. Yet, just like many people, I think that the NSA has gone astray. Imho, what is wrong is not necessarily the powers of the NSA (although I think that the sheer breadth of data captured is already an issue), but that the NSA powers lack a truly independent judicial review.

American citizens need to demand the dismantling of the NSA. The total benefit of NSA activities does not come close to compensating for 1/10th of 1% of the damage the NSA's activities have inflicted upon the American technology industries.

The NSA must be disbanded, and the activities they have engaged in must be made illegal and equated to treason against America -- these actions are certainly treason against America's constitution -- and should be punished as treason is punished.

Until this occurs, America's tech industry will suffer market share losses and a steadily accelerating erosion in their position in global markets.

Time to kill off the grand mistake which is the NSA before this massive mistake kills of America's most important industries.

Problem with that is Mr. Kemp is how do you know they where killed off. The psuedo accronym for the agency is "No Such Agency". We have to remember the NSA was still thought to be a myth even in the 80's. It wasn't until the late 60's early 70's America even acknowledge there was an NSA. Plus, wether we like it or not the without the NSA it leaves America open for countries like Russia, China, Iran, Mexico, Brazill, France. Notice I put allies on that list because they have their own version of the NSA and other intelligence agencies. Notice Economist admitted to London's GCHQ. Do you really believe NSA doesn't work with them as well as Austrila and Canada ? Dismantelling of the NSA does not work for us but creating stronger private encryption standards that HAVE NOT been taken from the FBI, open-source encryption standards created from groups of geeks world-wide and not bannning them in the US would go a long way for trust.

The issue is one of cost-benefit analysis. The true benefit from the NSA's spying is negligible in the grand scheme of things.
.
A greater benefit to America would be to be the most trusted, transparent, and honest country in the world. One where people's privacy is protected 100%. The value of occupying such moral high ground is tremendous for the American economy.
.
The loss of value to the American economy of losing the world's trust will be incalculably large, and will damage the American economy of many levels for decades to come.
.
The NSA's activities have become a malignant cancer which has metastasized into the entirety of America's computer, internet, software, chip and personal devices industries. This cancer must be eliminated through decisive measures.
.
Your point on stronger and open-source encryption is a good one, and would go a long way towards killing off the metastatic NSA cancer.
.
In the world today, it is more important for a country to have and dominate valuable, high-value-added industries -- as America presently does -- than it is to engage in paranoid spying on one's export customers' home countries around the world.
.
Terrorism is not truly a big problem in America, and it is not the case that it would become a materially larger problem with no NSA. What will become a larger problem due to the NSA is unemployment in America's high tech sector as other countries send American tech companies packing.

Recommending passwords like B@ny@n* is silly. Better read a certain comic strip number 936 on password strength. I can't post the url or name the (famous) author of the comic strip because of The Economist's spam filter but you may easily google it.

The password recommendation was beyond silly. It encourages the myth that simple character substitutions like @ for a make a password more secure. The equivalent in the real world would be placing tape over the key hole.

The difference between propaganda and information is precariously slight.

To begin an article titled 'Cracked Credibility' with the assertion that Intelligence Agencies 'exist to steal secrets', under the Economist banner, with no specific attributions as per the Author of the piece, shines a light on the qualities of the qualities of the economics that's being discussed here, in general.

Intelligence Agencies are purposed to gather, analyze and provide for the interpretable basis of that intelligence, where such intelligence is deemed warranted, as it pertains to the implications of that intelligence.

Secrets are made and held for a variety of reasons, but, most relevantly to obscure either falsehoods, or, conspiracies, circumstances that warrant reasonable insight into the potentialities stemming from the intents associated with those activities.

The notion here, the assertion that a government agency 'steals' is an obvious and problematic failure to appreciate the legal basis associated with governance, which is to 'govern'.

Certainly the politics associated with governance are complex, however, the rule of law requires insight into the facts associated with governance oriented towards that objective.

The future of secrecy is somewhat limited, in reality, the potential gains from secrecy are seriously diminished in the circumstance of the contemporary where most things are obvious as being determinable in a remarkably short time frame as would be comparable to the past with the assistance of 'intelligenced insight' made possible by technology.

As such, ceteris perebis, where such insight is not obscured by fractious and cynical politicization.

Ok, well how about I suggest theres no intent here for you to 'understand' what I'm saying but rather to contribute to your 'comprehension' of the issues.

The slight distinction between the qualities of the words we use to appreciate relative disposition to issues is as complicated as comprehension.

You can be sorry if you don't comprehend things, certainly, ... whether or not editorial assistance is required, my expression is with a purpose to critique the editorial position of the publication.

However many individuals read the article, or, the commentary associated with it, the Economists publication that Government agencies are 'thieves' in an international publication scrutinizing the activities of the NSA, or other intelligence agencies is introductory to qualifiably fractious and cynical politicization.

I hope this clarifies my concerns as it relates to the piece, however, am comfortable taking even more time to enhance your comprehension of the issues.

U.S. government involvement in restricting encryption has been around for a long time. Certain secure encryption algorithms were actually illegal to be exported. I thought I remember that they also restricted some domestic algorithms, but I could be wrong on that.

What does seem new is the attempts to undermine the standard-setting bodies by having them actually misstate the science. That type of interference in science has repercussions far beyond encryption.

It seems to me that the U.S. government has a long history of being able to intercept communications with a warrant (e.g. phone taps, etc.) and a case can be made that it is in the country's best interest to do so as new technologies replace phones. E.g. would organized crime have been largely stopped if the govt. didn't have wiretapping abilities?

Difficult questions, but in having this discussion, I think it is important to also recognize the historical value of wiretapping and its equivalents.

"Moreover, aver the NSA’s defenders, the idea that commercial cryptography is now useless is false. The software and hardware is still robust enough to protect the integrity of communications for most uses. Only someone with oodles of skill and computing power can break it."
Whether or not cryptography is useless depends on your intended use. If I encrypt information so that it is absolutely private, and the NSA can decrypt my information, it is not absolutely private, and my encryption was useless.
If the NSA can recruit spies in private institutions, is it possible that private interests can recruit spies in the NSA?
If the NSA could brake encryption, what kind of crazy monetary (and political) benefits would there be to exploiting that ability?
The fact that the power exists will inevitably compel private interests to try to exploit it.
I think it was Hegel who said, "We learn from history, that we do not learn from history."

But also remember that just because you restrict the NSA from doing it, doesn't mean that others can't use the same methods for infiltrating private companies and standards bodies... for financial gain (from private companies) or espionage (e.g. it seems likely that the Chinese government would also try to influence standard setting bodies and could do so).

Not defending the NSA, but simply saying that IMHO it would be foolish to think that just because we stop the NSA, other less publicly accountable organizations wouldn't do exactly the same thing. At least the NSA's involvement will allow us to have this debate and hopefully develop balanced standards.

And in the interest of furthering rational debate, I would question your belief that absolute privacy has ever existed for communications that weren't face to face. And perhaps that is a good thing? Not that there shouldn't be privacy, just that absolute privacy may be a utopian concept that doesn't work in the real world. Just a thought.

Other bodies would probably be less effective at infiltrating tech firms and standards bodies. (The NSA or its partners have been using the credibility that government bodies have by default.)

Also, we would not have this debate if it were not for Snowden.

As the Chinese probably know too well, loss of soft power brings intangible but pretty profound damages. America will be a lesser power for having lost what is, really, its only high ground in the international community.

I appreciate the response, and while your points are valid, the implied absolitism inherent in your reply is what I am reacting to.

E.g. Certainly Snowden has helped us have this debate now and helped it get into more public circles, but those knowledgable about encryption/internet standards have been having this debate for a long time. And IMHO, with or without Snowden, similar debates would and will continue to happen in the future.

And, while this may take America to lower ground, I think America will still occupy high ground and maintains a strong leadership position in International relations. I take exception to the idea that somehow a country has to be "perfect" to occupy moral high ground....and that because it is morally less perfect, then somehow it is the same low ground as say China and therefore no longer occupies high ground in the international community. (IMHO, History bears this out: the U.S. has done many immoral things from slavery to Japanese internment, to govt. sponsored chemical tests and still managed to maintain international respect despite these mistakes).

It is the extreme utopian "logic" that I am objecting to. IMHO, if that is the only reason that the U.S. occupied high ground in the international community, then perhaps it is best that this came out and we can get on with it.

Striving for ideals, valuing ideals, is very different from achieving them... especially in the world we live in. There are no simple answers, no idealistic solutions. Everything involves tradeoffs. And the sooner people understand that and get off their illogic that all imperfects are equal, the better.

Let's have the debate, we will all be richer for it. And the U.S. for all its flaws, does value debate....as does most of the West. And that IMHO is a still a high ground that deserves respect from the International community.

Thank you for your ideas. Unfortunately, the restraint of government power is one of the most, if not the most basic and cherished achievements of the Enlightenment.

When it comes to government abuses, the problem with nuanced debates, as I have mentioned before, is that the government always has the advantage in the debate (and especially in this case) as it alone holds the details of its activities and their effects, real or imagined.

The government is not an individual or any vulnerable entity in need of protection.

That is why, it is said (I think by the great Barry Goldwater) that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Thanks EggShells for the reply. Your perspective is certainly valid and important in the debate. I do recognize the perils in taking my views too far, but likewise I think it is a perspective that is a valuable part of the debate.

And I will offer a counterquote to yours:
"The 'ism' we have to fear most is extremism."
- Elie Wiesel

(I think both have validity, even though they seem to be contradictory). Again, thanks for taking the time to express your POV eloquently and rationally. It is folks like you who make this a great place to share/debate ideas.

I find that most social commentators tend to miss that, in reality, most people don't have the energy or knowledge to deal with gritty details of how society works. In a very fundamental way, a well-functioning system has to present and support simplified views that are appropriate to each type of stakeholder.

For example, democracy is really upheld by the will of all citizens. Since universal trust is vital, the voting system must be transparent (simple) enough for people to understand and support. Thankfully, at least in the US, we have never allowed politicians to tweak it in the interest of "sophistication," but only in the interest of simplicity (such as allowing women and minorities to vote, and removing property ownership requirements.)

So here is an argument in favor of blanket support for the basic rights we hold most important to our way of living.

I think we agree on most things except one: and that is that I think the modern world is much to complex for "blanket support" to be right in all cases. (If on the other hand, you will allow that "blanket support" means in 90% of the cases, but there are exceptions, then we are on the same page). Balance and tension among conflicting principles is important. And even if we don't agree, it does mean that we do agree 90%+ of the time and therefore can find much common ground.

I do agree with your observations on social commentators, and the importance of universal trust (but again it doesn't mean blanket trust. Trust with some skepticism, some requirement to verify the trust is always good for any system, whether governmental or nongovernmental).

Just as I wouldn't agree that we never allowed politicians to tweak it in the interest of sophistication. I think gerrymandering and the move to electronic voting machines (without paper backup) are expamples where that has happened. But where I do agreee, is that even so, the systemn is largely trustworthy and strikes a rational balance. (And only through continued vigilance can it remain so).

Another place where we may have differing views: I don't see governments as always having the advantage. Sometimes special interests have as much or more advantage, largely for the reasons you cite where most people don't have the energy or knowledge to deal with the gritty details. Sometimes governments use that to their advantage, but sometimes opponents can exploit that as well. (But I do agree that in 90% of cases it is the government who has the advantage).

And regardless, I suspect we both agree that vigilance, healthy skepticism, and not just accepting things at face value are important (regardless of whether the source is the government, a lobbying group, me, or you). Most may not have the time or energy to deal with gritty details, but some of us must or the cause is lost.

Yes it is true that the American democratic machinery has been tampered with via gerrymandering (and potentially with electronic voting with no paper trails.) I am not immediately sure if I can come up with an example where we the public have not allowed some kind of tampering that basically (in my opinion at least) serves some narrow interests. We are still alive, yes, and we are basically happy with our lives, perhaps, but for how much longer? And is this really the best we can do?

What is most vexing to me is that we can be so much better off just by strengthening a few well understood rules. E.g. the banking system is not really a free market as the public is basically guaranteeing private debt, and this is the ultimate source of most of our economic problems. Similarly, the toxicity of of the "deep state" of a military-intelligence apparatus can be largely neutralized by maintaining certain forms of strict transparency. I would much rather live with terrorism than with the police state, present or future.

Also, just to clarify our discussion a bit, the word "blanket" is actually quite relative. The real issue is how much complexity the public can handle. In cases where we can handle a lot, I see no problem with keeping the system flexible. (E.g. the handling of murders -- every TV viewer seems to be an expert on one of those celebrated cases!) In cases where we know less, like the intentions and workings of a secretive military industrial complex, perhaps things are different. Where we are unable to exercise enough supervision, perhaps we should be smart enough to set some hard rules -- and that is where I used the term "blanket."

This may not be a complete response, and I would love to continue discussions with you, but time is short and I also feel we shouldn't burden the other readers. If you want to send me email at egg.shells@gmx.com, that would be totally fine.

mathematicians have not solved the problem of how to determine if a number is prime despite much effort. you have to try every number up to the square root of the number. so the NSA computer has to guess billions of times. Edward Snowden said pick a long key. The guy who wrote the PGP open source algorithm says the government uses his algorithm. if it was compromised the government would not use it. so you can encrypt and send email with confidence if you use that. anyone can read how it works.

A more than ten year old arctile of the economist in the science and technology section stated that Indian mathematicians actually managed to create a program that could determine if a given number is a prime.
They didnt gave a method of predicting which number is the next large prime number .. but a series of tests that could tell if a given number is prime.

> mathematicians have not solved the problem of how to determine if a number is prime despite much effort.

Where did you get that piece of information from? That is a wrong assertion. Just read plain old dumb wikipedia:

"The property of being prime (or not) is called primality. A simple but slow method of verifying the primality of a given number n is known as trial division. It consists of testing whether n is a multiple of any integer between 2 and \sqrt{n}. Algorithms much more efficient than trial division have been devised to test the primality of large numbers. Particularly fast methods are available for numbers of special forms, such as Mersenne numbers. As of February 2013, the largest known prime number has 17,425,170 decimal digits."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

Google for the AKS algorithm. But even before that, there were a plethora of probabilistic algorithms to determine the primality (or not) of an integer with a probability of error as small as desired. You most certainly don't have to do the square root thing. If you had to, public key cryptography might not even exist.

Call me an anti-semite, but when I hear that records of all Americans, including especially Muslim Americans, are being passed freely to Israel and it's secret police the Mossad, then I have to wonder whether in future in American the Latinos and the Asians and the Middle Easterners (all American) have to start thinking of themselves as a separate axis to the Anglo and the Zionist.

So, The Economist has finally woken up to the severity of the problem, after having spent weeks on end ignoring it, or only writing cursorily about it? Your German-language speakers, in particular, will thank you.